MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 21 2020, 10:00 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Joel C. Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Jodi Kathryn Stein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.B.E., December 21, 2020 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-JV-1262 v. Appeal from the Greene Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Erik C. Allen, Appellee-Petitioner, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 28C01-2001-JS-1 28C01-2006-JD-23
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 1 of 22 Case Summary and Issues [1] J.B.E. appeals the juvenile court’s order awarding wardship of her to the
Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) for housing in a correctional
facility for children. J.B.E. raises several issues for our review which we restate
as: (1) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing her in the
DOC; and (2) whether J.B.E.’s placement in the DOC violates certain
provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Concluding the juvenile court
did not abuse its discretion and J.B.E.’s placement was not unconstitutional, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On December 19, 2019, J.B.H. contacted the Greene County Sheriff’s
Department and reported that her fourteen-year-old daughter, J.B.E., was
missing. Around the same time, fifteen-year-old S.M, J.B.E.’s girlfriend, was
also reported missing.
[3] The next day, J.B.E. and S.M. were located at a friend’s house. A sheriff took
them to the department, where they spoke to the juvenile probation officer and
were then released to their parents. On January 10, 2020, in Cause No. 28C01-
2001-JS-1 (“Cause No. JS-1”), the State filed a petition alleging J.B.E. was a
delinquent child for committing the status offense of leaving home without
reasonable cause and permission of a parent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 2 of 22 [4] A fact-finding hearing was held on March 10 during which J.B.E. admitted to
the allegations in the petition. On March 20, the juvenile court entered a
dispositional decree adjudicating J.B.E. a delinquent child for the offense of
running away, ordering J.B.E. to be on supervised probation for nine months,
and finding that J.B.E. “has become a chronic runaway in the month of
December, 2019 generating 3 calls to the Sheriff’s Department to locate her.
Her mother is very concerned about impulsiveness and inability to follow
reasonable requests.” Appellant’s Appendix, Volume II at 43-44. Because of
the discord between J.B.E. and her mother, J.B.E. was placed in the care and
custody of Kimberly McGuire, a family friend, and ordered to participate in
individual and family therapy, maintain good behavior, refrain from running
away or violating the law, and obey all rules and regulations imposed on her.
See id. at 47.
[5] On March 27, J.B.E. hid her sister and S.M., two runaway juveniles, in
McGuire’s home without McGuire’s knowledge. On March 28 and April 1,
law enforcement officers checked McGuire’s home but did not find the missing
juveniles. Later on April 1, officers discovered evidence that the juveniles had
been in the home and J.B.E. admitted that they had been there the entire time
without McGuire’s knowledge. In response to these events, on April 7, J.B.E.’s
probation officer, Julie Johnson, filed a Verified Petition for Modification of
Dispositional Decree asking the juvenile court to review J.B.E.’s placement due
to McGuire’s “concerns about her ability to monitor [J.B.E.]’s behavior” and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 3 of 22 J.B.E. may need to be in “a more secure placement with 24-hour supervision.”
Id. at 49.
[6] A hearing on the motion was held on May 12. Johnson recommended that
J.B.E. be placed in emergency shelter care at Open Arms Christian Ministries
Group Home for Girls where she could receive services and her mother would
have regular contact with the facility. The juvenile court took the matter under
advisement and on May 18, issued its Order for Emergency Shelter Care
removing J.B.E. from McGuire’s home and placing J.B.E. at Open Arms
Group Home for no more than twenty days. The same day, a detective with
the Greene County Sheriff’s Department went to McGuire’s home to transport
J.B.E. to Open Arms. Upon arrival, the detective allowed J.B.E. to gather her
personal items from her bedroom. When J.B.E. did not timely return, the
detective went to her bedroom to investigate and discovered it was locked.
After gaining entry, the detective went into the room and found the window
open. J.B.E. had fled from the house by jumping out of her second story
bedroom window. After she fled, J.B.E. reached out to her sister and mother
via social media and reported, “I love you and I am safe.” Id. at 56. Officers
began searching for J.B.E.
[7] Based on J.B.E.’s flight, on May 19, Johnson filed an amended petition to
modify the dispositional decree. Four days after she fled, J.B.E. was located in
Bloomington, where Johnson suspected J.B.E. had been around unsafe
individuals. After J.B.E. was located, a GPS monitoring bracelet was placed on
her ankle. Shortly thereafter, J.B.E. attempted suicide and was taken to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 4 of 22 Meadows Hospital for her own safety and for a diagnostic evaluation. On May
26, while still in the hospital, J.B.E. removed her GPS monitoring bracelet by
“chewing it off[,]” which caused damage to the device. Id. at 68.
[8] On May 28, the juvenile court held a hearing on the amended petition. During
the hearing, J.B.E. admitted to the allegations in the petition and consented to
placement at Valle Vista Health Systems,1 Children and Adolescent Unit to be
evaluated. The juvenile court provided J.B.E. with a written warning of the
consequences for violating her placement. The juvenile court read the warning
and provided her with a physical copy. The juvenile court also summarized the
warning:
In short, what that means now, once you’re being placed at Valley [sic] Vista, if you do not follow the rules and you runaway [sic] again, now as a status offender, I can put you in a locked facility, up to and including the [DOC] or Girls’ School Facility. And I want you to understand that. And you have pushed us to a point where we would have zero other options.
Transcript of Evidence, Volume 2 at 71.
[9] The next day, J.B.E. was placed at Valle Vista. Several days later, on June 3,
an administrator at Valle Vista contacted Johnson and requested that J.B.E. be
immediately removed from the facility. The administrator reported that
1 Throughout the record, this facility is also referred to as “Valley Vista.” Although it is unclear from the record which is correct, we refer to this facility as “Valle Vista” throughout this opinion, as this is the name that appears in the June 3, 2020 Verified Petition for Modification of Dispositional Decree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 5 of 22 J.B.E.’s behavior “posed a significant safety risk to herself and other residents.
She has repeatedly broken through the unit doors, eloping from the unit and
allowing other youth to be exposed to unsecured areas[.]” Appellant’s App.,
Vol. II at 68. It was also reported that J.B.E. “jumped a fence after eloping
from the unit and began climbing towards the roof, requiring physical
intervention from our staff to ensure her safety” and she had repeatedly
engaged in property destruction, including dismantling doors. Id. Due to
J.B.E.’s high risk behavior, the facility requested her immediate removal and
recommended that she be placed in a locked and secure setting.
[10] The same day, Johnson filed a third verified petition for modification of the
dispositional order, stating she believed J.B.E. needed to be placed in the
Indiana Girls School. Also that day, the State filed a petition alleging J.B.E. to
be a delinquent child for acts that would constitute criminal mischief, a Class B
misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. A separate cause number was
assigned for the charge: Cause No. 28C01-2006-JD-23 (“Cause No. JD-23”).
The State alleged J.B.E. recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged or
defaced Greene County Community Corrections’ property by biting and
damaging the ankle strap of her GPS monitoring device. See id. at 96.
[11] On June 8, the juvenile court held an initial hearing on the State’s new petition
in Cause No. JD-23 and the petition to modify the dispositional decree in
Cause No. JS-1. At the hearing, J.B.E. admitted to the new allegations.
Johnson recommended that J.B.E. be committed to the DOC for placement in
the Indiana Girls’ School. She testified that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 6 of 22 [J.B.E. has] earned this road and she needs to pave it. . . .We’ve chased her all over Bloomington, sixteen hours of overtime last time looking for her because she jumped out of a window, when the officer was clearly being nice to her and allowed her to gather her belongings. Running with people who are extremely dangerous, doesn’t care how it affects her family, her mom, her siblings – only when we’re here today, now she wants to follow the rules, and . . . her behavior has not indicated that. So, I feel like she’ll be safe at Girls’ School. We’ll know where she’s at. She can’t get away [and s]he’ll have to complete the program. I hope she takes that to heart and does that, but I think at this point, that’s the only available opportunity for [her].
Tr., Vol. 2 at 88. J.B.E. also testified. When asked why she removed the GPS
device, she responded, “I don’t know what I was thinking.” Id. at 82. J.B.E.
proposed being placed in a residential group home.
[12] Ultimately, the juvenile court decided it was in J.B.E.’s best interest to be
placed in the DOC, reasoning that:
[T]here is only one decision, one option. [Y]ou had an opportunity initially to . . . stay home, but that wasn’t what you wanted to do. You had the kinship placement, that turned out not to be a good situation. But, didn’t recognize that. When ordered, you removed from that and placed at Open Arms, you jumped out the window, again, and took off, put yourself and others at risk. Over a period of days, . . . trying to track you down, and finally, I think, you turned yourself in at that point, made arrangements to . . . be picked up. And, then Valley [sic] Vista was a place that I believe would really meet your needs, and it was . . . a locked facility, which was important, but less restrictive than detention or [DOC] and that couldn’t even get off the ground before that placement blew up. [T]he problem is each step of the way you have not complied with the . . . rules or the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 7 of 22 orders of the court in some circumstances and continue to put yourself and others at risk. And, a less restrictive placement than a locked facility . . . put you at risk and would not be meeting your needs, because it gives you the freedom right now to avoid doing what you have to do. And, right now you can’t handle that freedom. So, I mean, . . . there is no other option. I wish there was a . . . different option of a . . . residential placement, but there’s not right now. [T]his has been a stair step process, quickly elevating to the point that the [DOC], Girls’ School Facility is the only option we have to ensure your wellbeing, to ensure proper services are provided. And, I want you to understand that the placement that I’m going to order there is going to be dependent upon you, and the duration of it – how you do, how you handle yourself, how you respond to things. . . . The way you get out is you earn your way out by complying and doing what you need to do and, . . . working the services and the programs there[.] Because if you do not do that, the longer you will stay. . . . [T]his isn’t necessarily punishment – now certainly by virtue of what it is and a locked facility and all that, there’s an element that is punishment just because it is what it is, but the purpose is to help you. Okay? Help you and your family. . . . I’m asking you to . . . give it your best shot . . . [f]or you. You deserve that. And, you need this to protect yourself and to improve yourself.
Id. at 95-97. The juvenile court subsequently issued its written dispositional
order placing J.B.E. in the DOC for an indeterminate period. J.B.E. now
appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 8 of 22 I. Dispositional Decree A. Standard of Review [13] The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to
the sound discretion of the juvenile court. A.C. v. State, 144 N.E.3d 810, 812
(Ind. Ct. App. 2020). The juvenile court is afforded wide latitude and great
flexibility in its dealings with juveniles; however, its goal is to rehabilitate rather
than punish. D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The
juvenile court’s discretion is subject to the statutory considerations of the
welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the legislative policy
favoring the least harsh disposition. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010); see also Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. An abuse of discretion occurs when
the juvenile court’s decision is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect
of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable, probable, and actual
inferences that can be drawn therefrom. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458
(Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied, cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 2020 WL 6121643
(Oct. 19, 2020).
B. Commitment to the DOC [14] J.B.E. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing her to the
DOC because her “misconduct did not justify such a harsh sanction, which was
inconsistent with the juvenile code and [her] history, circumstances, best
interests, and risk posed to the community.” Brief of the Appellant at 16. We
disagree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 9 of 22 [15] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 sets forth several factors a juvenile court must
consider in entering a dispositional decree:
If consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that:
(1) is:
(A) in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available; and
(B) close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child;
(2) least interferes with family autonomy;
(3) is least disruptive of family life;
(4) imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.
[16] There is no question that the statute requires the juvenile court to select the least
restrictive placement in most situations, but in certain circumstances, a more
restrictive placement might be appropriate. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386-
87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Specifically, it is appropriate when the
best interest of the child and the safety of the community is better served by a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 10 of 22 more restrictive placement. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005); Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6.
[17] J.B.E. first argues that she was committed to DOC for her status offenses of
running away, which is not authorized by statute. She claims, “[T]he act
alleged to constitute Criminal Mischief was just an incidental part of [her]
efforts to run away – not an independent offense in itself.” Br. of the Appellant
at 19. J.B.E. is correct that a juvenile adjudicated for a status offense, such as
running away, cannot be committed to the DOC. See Ind. Code § 31-37-19-1.
However, as J.B.E. acknowledges, the juvenile court has the authority to
commit a juvenile to the DOC for the commission of delinquent acts. Ind.
Code § 31-37-19-6(b)(2)(A)(i).
[18] Contrary to J.B.E.’s assertion, she was not committed to the DOC for her status
offenses. We agree with the State that “[i]t was only after all of [J.B.E.’s]
placements failed under [Cause No.] JS-1 and [J.B.E.] committed the new
delinquent act of criminal mischief under [Cause No.] JD-23 that the juvenile
court awarded commitment to the DOC.” State’s Brief of Appellee at 20
(footnote omitted).
[19] J.B.E.’s recent contact with our juvenile justice system began with her running
away with her girlfriend in December 2019. She was adjudicated a delinquent
child for her status offense, which resulted in her kinship placement with
McGuire in March 2020. During this time, J.B.E. was required to participate in
therapy, maintain good behavior, obey rules, and refrain from running away or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 11 of 22 violating the law. Two weeks into this placement, J.B.E. hid two runaway
juveniles in McGuire’s house without McGuire’s knowledge. As a result, the
juvenile court issued an Order for Emergency Shelter Care removing J.B.E.
from McGuire’s home and placing her in Open Arms group home, a more
secure facility with supervision and services. When a detective arrived at
McGuire’s house to transport J.B.E. to the facility, he allowed her to gather
some personal belongings. Instead of complying, J.B.E. jumped from her
second story bedroom window and fled. Four days later, J.B.E. was found. A
GPS monitoring device was placed on J.B.E.’s ankle and shortly thereafter, she
attempted suicide and was taken to the hospital. At the hospital, J.B.E. chewed
off the monitoring device, which caused damage to it. The juvenile court
modified its dispositional order to place J.B.E. at Valle Vista, a residential
treatment facility. J.B.E. was there from May 29 to June 3, at which time the
facility requested J.B.E.’s immediate removal because she posed a risk to herself
and others. The State then filed a petition alleging J.B.E. committed the
delinquent act of criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an
adult. At the hearing addressing the new petition, as well as another petition to
modify the dispositional decree, J.B.E. admitted to the allegations and was
adjudicated a delinquent child.
[20] It was only after all of these failed less restrictive placements and the newly
committed delinquent act that the juvenile court believed it had no other option
but to place J.B.E. in the DOC for her own safety and the safety of the
community. The juvenile court explained that J.B.E. has continued to put
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 12 of 22 herself and others at risk and anything other than a locked facility would be a
disservice “because it [would] put you at risk and would not be meeting your
needs, because it gives you the freedom right now to avoid doing what you
have to do. And, right now you can’t handle that freedom.” Tr., Vol. 2 at 96.
The juvenile court even stated that “there is no other option. I wish there was a
. . . different option of a . . . residential placement, but there’s not right now.
[T]his has been a stair step process, quickly elevating to the point that the
[DOC], Girls’ School Facility is the only option we have to ensure your
wellbeing, to ensure proper services are provided.” Id.
[21] J.B.E. claims “[p]lacement at a treatment facility would be least disruptive of
family life, impose the least restraint on [her] freedom . . ., and provide a
reasonable opportunity for participation by [her] family.” Br. of the Appellant
at 23. But J.B.E. now fails to acknowledge that she was placed in a treatment
facility for several days before the facility administrator requested J.B.E.’s
immediate removal due to her behavior, which posed a risk to herself and
others. J.B.E. also claims there were other less restrictive options that her
probation officer did not pursue. At the initial hearing on the new petition for
delinquency and modification of the dispositional order, Johnson testified that
she checked with one facility, Lutherwood, but it had a wait list. See Tr., Vol. 2
at 87. She also testified there was one outstanding facility she had not
contacted, but it was a five- or six-hour drive and did not want to ask the sheriff
to drive J.B.E. that far for her to only last a few days. She did not know
whether the facility had a wait list or whether they would accept J.B.E. See id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 13 of 22 at 88. However, Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 only requires the juvenile
court to select the least restrictive placement if it is in the best interest of the
juvenile and the community. And there is no requirement that a juvenile court
needs to have exhausted all available less restrictive placements before
committing a juvenile to the DOC.
[22] As our supreme court has explained,
The nature of the juvenile process is rehabilitation and aid to the juvenile to direct his behavior so that he will not later become a criminal. . . . When a juvenile is found to be delinquent, a program is attempted to deter him from going further in that direction in the hope that he can straighten out his life before the stigma of criminal conviction and the resultant detriment to society is realized. In contrast, when an adult is convicted of a crime, the conviction is a stigma that follows him through life, creating many roadblocks to rehabilitation. In addition to the general stigma of being an “ex-con”, or a felon, the conviction subjects him to being found a habitual criminal if he later commits additional felonies, and affects his credibility as a witness in future trials. The Legislature purposely designed the procedures of juvenile determinations so that these problems are not visited on those found to be juvenile delinquents in a juvenile court.
Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 408-09 (Ind. 1987) (emphasis added).
[23] J.B.E. was not committed to the DOC as punishment. She was sent there for
the sole purpose of reforming her behavior and protecting her and the
community. We acknowledge that the offenses committed by J.B.E., in
isolation, are relatively minor; however, when considering her history as a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 14 of 22 whole and the fact that other less restrictive placements have not succeeded in
reforming J.B.E., the juvenile court had no other option but to place her in the
DOC. Ultimately, the record supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that a
more restrictive placement for J.B.E., a secure facility where she can engage in
rehabilitative services, was in the best interest of herself and the community.
Therefore, we cannot conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion by
committing J.B.E. to the DOC.
III. Constitutional Issues [24] J.B.E. also raises several state and federal constitutional claims she
acknowledges were not raised to the juvenile court. Therefore, the State argues
J.B.E. has waived appellate review of these issues. See State’s Br. of Appellee at
23, 31. However,
our Supreme Court has determined that “[e]ven though the general rule is that failure to challenge the constitutionality of a statute at trial results in waiver of review on appeal, this Court as well as the Court of Appeals has long exercised its discretion to address the merits of a party’s constitutional claim notwithstanding waiver.”
M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459 (quoting Plank v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc., 981 N.E.2d
49, 53 (Ind. 2013)). We exercise our discretion to review J.B.E.’s claims.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 15 of 22 A. Federal Equal Protection and Article 1, section 23 of the Indiana Constitution [25] J.B.E. contends that the statutory framework authorizing her commitment to
the DOC is unconstitutional under the federal Equal Protection clause and
Article 1, section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because “[t]he juvenile court
imposed greater restrictions on [her] liberty than an adult would have suffered
for the same misconduct.” Br. of the Appellant at 25. We disagree.
[26] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states
from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.” J.B.E. claims that a strict scrutiny analysis applies to the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the United States
Supreme Court has rejected age as a suspect class, stating that “[o]ld age . . .
does not define a discrete and insular minority because all persons, if they live
out their normal life spans, will experience it.” Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents,
528 U.S. 62, 83 (2000). As such, it has held that “States may discriminate on
the basis of age without offending the Fourteenth Amendment if the age
classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Id.
(emphasis added). Therefore, because our juvenile justice statutes do not
involve a suspect classification, rational basis review applies and J.B.E. “must
demonstrate that there is no rational basis to treat juvenile delinquents
differently than adult offenders.” M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 460.
[27] This court recently addressed this very question in M.C., in which M.C., a
juvenile, had been committed to the DOC after his continued marijuana use,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 16 of 22 commission of additional offenses, theft, and failed less restrictive placements.
Id. at 457-59. M.C. challenged the juvenile court’s disposition placing him in
the DOC arguing that the imposition of greater restrictions on a juvenile than
an adult violated equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment
and Article 1, section 23 of our state constitution. Id. at 460. We rejected
M.C.’s argument and reemphasized that the juvenile system’s goal is
reformation and rehabilitation of juveniles, a juvenile court’s dispositional
options do not amount to “‘sentences’ for ‘crimes[,]’” and instead of
punishment, commitment to the DOC ensures that a juvenile receives the
rehabilitative counseling needed in a secure environment. Id. at 461. As a
result, we concluded that “disparate treatment between adults and juvenile
offenders is required to address the nuances of youth” and are “rationally
related to the goal of ensuring rehabilitation of juveniles.” Id. And thus, the
disparate treatment of juveniles does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. We find M.C.’s well-reasoned analysis
applicable here.2
[28] In an attempt to distinguish M.C., J.B.E. claims that her conduct was much less
severe. However, given the underlying rationale for treating juveniles
differently, we are unpersuaded that the degree of her conduct impacts our
analysis. Here, the juvenile court resorted to the DOC for the sole purpose of
2 J.B.E. respectfully claims M.C. was wrongly decided. We disagree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 17 of 22 reforming J.B.E.’s behavior before she reached adulthood because her
placements in less-restrictive environments failed and the juvenile court had no
other option to ensure her safety and the safety of the community. See id.
[29] Similarly, J.B.E. also argues her commitment to the DOC violates the privileges
and immunities clause of Article 1, section 23 of the Indiana Constitution,
which provides: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class
of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not
equally belong to all citizens.” The section imposes two requirements on
statutes that grant unequal privileges and immunities: (1) “the disparate
treatment accorded by the legislation must be reasonably related to inherent
characteristics [that] distinguish the unequally treated classes”; and (2) “the
preferential treatment must be uniformly applicable and equally available to all
persons similarly situated.” Ledbetter v. Hunter, 842 N.E.2d 810, 812 (Ind. 2006)
(quoting Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72, 80 (Ind. 1994)). Each prong has two
requirements. Id. at 813. The first prong requires that (a) the classification be
based on “distinctive, inherent characteristics that rationally distinguish the
unequally treated class[;]” and (b) the disparate treatment be reasonably related
to the distinguishing characteristics. Id. (quotation omitted). And the second
prong requires that (a) any privileged classification be open to any and all
persons who share the inherent characteristics that distinguish and justify such
classification; and (b) the special treatment be extended equally to all persons in
such classification. Id. In applying this standard, “courts must accord
considerable deference to the manner in which the legislature has balanced the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 18 of 22 competing interests involved [and] so long as the classification is based upon
substantial distinctions with reference to the subject matter, we will not
substitute our judgment for that of the legislature[.]” Id.
[30] Applying this standard, the M.C. court held, and we agree that “distinguishing
between juvenile delinquents and adult offenders is rationally related to the goal
of promoting rehabilitation among juvenile delinquents. Restrictive
placements, including the DOC, can promote rehabilitation and the policy of
individual accountability.” 134 N.E.3d at 462. Here, J.B.E.’s commitment to
the DOC will allow her to obtain the rehabilitative services she needs to change
her behavior and, as the juvenile court noted, the duration of J.B.E.’s
commitment is within her control. Once she has been rehabilitated, she will be
released. We cannot conclude her commitment to the DOC violates the
privileges and immunities clause of our constitution.
[31] In sum, the juvenile statutes authorizing J.B.E.’s placement in the DOC do not
violate the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment or Article 1, section 23 of
the Indiana Constitution.
B. Eighth Amendment and Article 1, section 16 [32] J.B.E. also challenges the constitutionality of her commitment to the DOC
under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment and
the proportionality clause of the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, section 16.
[33] The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “Excessive
bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 19 of 22 punishments inflicted.” Proportionality is central and “[e]mbodied in the . . .
ban on cruel and unusual punishments is the precept of justice that punishment
for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.” Graham v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 (2010) (internal quotation omitted). The clause applies
to the criminal process, namely direct actions by the government to inflict
punishment. M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 463. Similarly, Article 1, section 16 of our
constitution provides, in part, “Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be
inflicted. All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.”
[34] However, our supreme court has made it clear that “a juvenile case is a civil
and not a criminal matter. Juvenile adjudications do not constitute criminal
convictions.” Jordan, 512 N.E.2d at 408. Accordingly, “[n]one of the[ ]
commitments [available to the juvenile court] are considered sentences.” Id. In
M.C., we acknowledged that our supreme court has not yet specifically
addressed whether the Eighth Amendment is applicable to delinquency
proceedings. M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 463. Instead, the panel relied on In re Rodney
H., 861 N.E.2d 623, 629-30 (Ill. 2006), an Illinois Supreme Court case that held
that juvenile delinquency proceedings do not implicate the Eighth Amendment
because the purpose of a delinquency petition is to rehabilitate, not punish. Id.
Applying that reasoning, we concluded the same, stating that
our General Assembly has codified the goal of the juvenile system by requiring juvenile courts to consider the needs of the child, efforts made to prevent removal from the parents, and various services that must be offered to juvenile offenders. I.C. § 31-37-18-9. Furthermore, our legislature has imposed strict
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 20 of 22 requirements on juvenile facilities to provide recreation, education, counseling, and health care that must be operated by qualified staff to provide such programs and treatment. See I.C. § 31-37-19-21. Delinquency actions are designed to rehabilitate and correct, and they encourage juveniles to “straighten out [their lives] before the stigma of criminal conviction and the resultant detriment to society is realized.” Jordan[, 512 N.E.2d at 409]. Indeed, Article 9, [s]ection 2 of the Indiana Constitution states “The General Assembly shall provide institutions for the correction and reformation of juvenile offenders.”
Id. at 463-64 (footnote omitted). Therefore, we held that the juvenile court’s
dispositional order was not a penalty or punishment implicating the Eighth
Amendment and the appellant’s argument that commitment to the DOC
violated Article 1, section 16 of our state constitution unavailing. Id. at 464.
[35] We conclude the same here. J.B.E.’s commitment to the DOC is not a
punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment or Article 1, section
16 of the Indiana Constitution.
Conclusion [36] For the reasons set forth above, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion by placing J.B.E. in the DOC. We also conclude that our juvenile
statutes do not violate the equal protection or privileges and immunities
principles under the Fourteenth Amendment or Article 1, section 23 of the
Indiana Constitution, or the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth
Amendment or Article 1, section 16 of the Indiana Constitution. Therefore, we
affirm. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 21 of 22 [37] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1262 | December 21, 2020 Page 22 of 22